| First of all leave your judgment elsewhere. Else there's no point in discussion because to you it's "Gross" to even have a different opinion. It really depends on the people you have in your society and what the sick people are contributing. Getting sick needs to have some kind of downside to it. Else people have no incentive to stay healthy. They can take as many risks as they want to their personal health because it's going to be paid for by other healthy people. America in particular has a large obese population which is addicted to popping pills and overmedicating in general. If you give people free license to eat whatever they want or take as many drugs as they want without consequence our healthcare costs are going to be unaffordable very soon (they nearly already are) Once you are in a system where everyone is forced to contribute, one person's actions affect others. If you don't take care of yourself and get sick, others are forced to pay for you. If you have too many people who don't take care of themselves, the healthy people are the ones who get screwed because it's effectively a wealth transfer: They're paying for sick people to have the license to do whatever they want. The reality is that sick people are a drain on society's resources. Obviously we need a humane solution to treat them but the answer shouldn't just be a blank check. There are sick people who require hundreds of thousands of care YEARLY. They are not temporarily sick, they are permanently sick. I dont' think it's fair that they pay the same rate as healthy people. If you are permanently sick, that sucks but you should pay more of the burden. |
Yeah it would suck if illness affected your ability to be physically active, gain and keep employment, be part of a happy relationship, enjoy hobbies, etc.
It's great that you've found a way to punish people financially so those ill freeriders don't get off Scott free.